Hilarious that Philip Pullman's tweet hinting that Boris should be hanged has attracted little comment on here. Now if it had come from the other side......
Leaving to one side the disturbing image of Boris Johnson as Queen Anne, the real story here is that the constitutionalists are continuing to look at the legislative route.
They almost never are. It’s either a politician (in which case it’ll mostly stop there) or it’ll be a disciplinary matter for an individual and private.
Hilarious that Philip Pullman's tweet hinting that Boris should be hanged has attracted little comment on here. Now if it had come from the other side......
Is this true that the decision to prorogue was taken by Johnson, Gove and Cox alone and without consultation with other Ministers? Just mentioned on WATO.
Yup. As I pointed out, you can do a lot with 3 PCs and a famous example is the authorisation of the Falklands TaskForce (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott). It worries me that I know this and MPs don't.
Does explain the relative absence of Cabinet Ministers out to defend it.
Interesting fact. The Cabinet is a standing subcommittee of the Privy Council. The trick to understanding the UK is that it's a mediaeval kingdom retrofitted to behave like a Westphalian state. Many of the old, dusty buttons and switches still have power and there are many tricks one can pull.
One of the many worrying aspects of this whole debacle is that we might conceivably end up with our constitution rewritten under a Corbyn government.
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Prorouging Parliament is a far worse betrayal of Take Back Control
If Parliament was prorogued from 4 September to 1 November maybe. That's not happening though is it?
Proroguation is happening over 4 sitting days as a long overdue Queens Speech finally happens.
If it wanted to Parliament could vote to revoke. It's had 3.5 years so far the hysteria over 4 sitting days for an overdue State Opening is pathetic.
Bollocks. You know effing well that the PM is frit of the Commons. He's a coward and a liar. This wheeze has been designed to avoid scrutiny.
I totally disagree with this characterisation of our Prime Minister.
It should read, 'he's a coward, a liar, a racist, a chauvinist, a bully, an inarticulate speaker and a lazy fool.'
You’ll be delighted to know I’m writing an article on Dominic Cummings, I think you’ll enjoy.
I'm not seeing tears - to be honest I want this over with so that the show trials can begin.
What is it with these Remainers and their desire for violence and retribution?
We don't have a chance to sublimate it into the destruction of national institutions like leavers do, and so must find other ways to expiate the urges. Some favour scenarios of dreadful depravity that would make Eli Roth poo his pants, but others are into pedantry and the exact shape of the USS Enterprise's pylons WHICH STAR TREK DISCOVERY HAS GOT TOTALLY WRONG, GODSDAMMIT!
Ahem. Just a twitch. Under control now. Happy thoughts, viewcode, happy thoughts...
Hilarious that Philip Pullman's tweet hinting that Boris should be hanged has attracted little comment on here. Now if it had come from the other side......
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Prorouging Parliament is a far worse betrayal of Take Back Control
If Parliament was prorogued from 4 September to 1 November maybe. That's not happening though is it?
Proroguation is happening over 4 sitting days as a long overdue Queens Speech finally happens.
If it wanted to Parliament could vote to revoke. It's had 3.5 years so far the hysteria over 4 sitting days for an overdue State Opening is pathetic.
Bollocks. You know effing well that the PM is frit of the Commons. He's a coward and a liar. This wheeze has been designed scrutiny.
What is it with LDs and bollocks?
They're the only party that are showing some right now?
I'm not seeing tears - to be honest I want this over with so that the show trials can begin.
What is it with these Remainers and their desire for violence and retribution?
We don't have a chance to sublimate it into the destruction of national institutions like leavers do, and so must find other ways to expiate the urges. Some favour scenarios of dreadful depravity that would make Eli Roth poo his pants, but others are into pedantry and the exact shape of the USS Enterprise's pylons WHICH STAR TREK DISCOVERY HAS GOT TOTALLY WRONG, GODSDAMMIT!
Ahem. Just a twitch. Under control now. Happy thoughts, viewcode, happy thoughts...
Did William Shatner not allow them to do any measurements?
I'm appalled by Ruth Davidson's remarks. "referenda"? Ye Gods. It is always referendums.
What I worked at BBC News in the late 70s we had two referendums going on in Scotland and Wales and the dictat came from high - the plural was referenda. At the time I was Duty Editor for Radios 1 and 2 news and felt almost embarrassed by this for our audiences. We used to get into all sorts of verbal contortions to avoid "referendums" but we never used the form referenda
On a similar note, Dear the United Kingdom, it’s coup d’État, with a capital E with an accent aigu, please.
#PedantryCorner
I thought accents over capital letters were entirely optional in written French?
Thats what I was taught too - and its certainly a widespread practice - but as a Francophile Republican TSE has the Academie FrancaiseAcadémie Française on his side.
I'm appalled by Ruth Davidson's remarks. "referenda"? Ye Gods. It is always referendums.
What I worked at BBC News in the late 70s we had two referendums going on in Scotland and Wales and the dictat came from high - the plural was referenda. At the time I was Duty Editor for Radios 1 and 2 news and felt almost embarrassed by this for our audiences. We used to get into all sorts of verbal contortions to avoid "referendums" but we never used the form referenda
On a similar note, Dear the United Kingdom, it’s coup d’État, with a capital E with an accent aigu, please.
#PedantryCorner
I thought accents over capital letters were entirely optional in written French?
Thats what I was taught too - and its certainly a widespread practice - but as a Francophile Republican TSE has the Academie FrancaiseAcadémie Française on his side.
Hilarious that Philip Pullman's tweet hinting that Boris should be hanged has attracted little comment on here. Now if it had come from the other side......
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
The USA lacks a monarch and is full of republicans. Whatever anyone thinks of Americans, their patriotism rarely in doubt.
A monarch is not required to be a patriot.
Would you view an American citizen who campaigned for the Queen to be crowned as Queen of the US as a patriot?
Indeed. That was my point but I used Kim Jong-Un as an example.
Corbyn is the only game in town. An interesting question is whether this is whole affair is a devious plot by Number 10 to have Corbyn call the who runs Britain? election.
Is this true that the decision to prorogue was taken by Johnson, Gove and Cox alone and without consultation with other Ministers? Just mentioned on WATO.
Yup. As I pointed out, you can do a lot with 3 PCs and a famous example is the authorisation of the Falklands TaskForce (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott). It worries me that I know this and MPs don't.
Does explain the relative absence of Cabinet Ministers out to defend it.
Interesting fact. The Cabinet is a standing subcommittee of the Privy Council. The trick to understanding the UK is that it's a mediaeval kingdom retrofitted to behave like a Westphalian state. Many of the old, dusty buttons and switches still have power and there are many tricks one can pull.
How is a legitimate Privy Council meeting can comprise only the Queen, the Leader of the HoC, the Leader of the HoL and the Government Chief Whip?
Don't they have any requirements for balance or a quorum?
Is this true that the decision to prorogue was taken by Johnson, Gove and Cox alone and without consultation with other Ministers? Just mentioned on WATO.
Yup. As I pointed out, you can do a lot with 3 PCs and a famous example is the authorisation of the Falklands TaskForce (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott). It worries me that I know this and MPs don't.
Does explain the relative absence of Cabinet Ministers out to defend it.
Interesting fact. The Cabinet is a standing subcommittee of the Privy Council. The trick to understanding the UK is that it's a mediaeval kingdom retrofitted to behave like a Westphalian state. Many of the old, dusty buttons and switches still have power and there are many tricks one can pull.
How is a legitimate Privy Council meeting can comprise only the Queen, the Leader of the HoC, the Leader of the HoL and the Government Chief Whip?
Don't they have any requirements for balance or a quorum?
Yes. Three plus the Sovereign is a quorum.
No, because the Council is to advise the queen and parties have no standing on it.
Hilarious that Philip Pullman's tweet hinting that Boris should be hanged has attracted little comment on here. Now if it had come from the other side......
He's apologised for an intemperate outburst. Nothing to see here.
Except if some other loon takes him at his word. Your final sentence is a total disgrace if completely unsurprising.
So all abuse of MPs on twitter, etc., that we've heard so much about can be resolved by the relevant authorities so long as the perpetrator says sorry? Glad we've cleared that up.
Johnson's chances of getting a deal through the Commons were always pretty slim - after yesterday they must be nil. Indeed it's hard to see how he can ever win a Commons vote on anything controversial under any circumstances.
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Prorouging Parliament is a far worse betrayal of Take Back Control
If Parliament was prorogued from 4 September to 1 November maybe. That's not happening though is it?
Proroguation is happening over 4 sitting days as a long overdue Queens Speech finally happens.
If it wanted to Parliament could vote to revoke. It's had 3.5 years so far the hysteria over 4 sitting days for an overdue State Opening is pathetic.
Bollocks. You know effing well that the PM is frit of the Commons. He's a coward and a liar. This wheeze has been designed to avoid scrutiny.
I totally disagree with this characterisation of our Prime Minister.
It should read, 'he's a coward, a liar, a racist, a chauvinist, a bully, an inarticulate speaker and a lazy fool.'
You’ll be delighted to know I’m writing an article on Dominic Cummings, I think you’ll enjoy.
Looking forward to your article on David Cameron even more
Johnson's chances if getting any deal through the Commons were pretty slim in any event - after yesterday they must be nil. Indeed it's hard to see how he can ever win a Commons vote on anything controversial ever.
Oh, I don't know. If he put forward a motion saying Dominic Cummings should be horsewhipped naked through the streets of London that might be controversial but I suspect it would command a large majority.
Is this true that the decision to prorogue was taken by Johnson, Gove and Cox alone and without consultation with other Ministers? Just mentioned on WATO.
Yup. As I pointed out, you can do a lot with 3 PCs and a famous example is the authorisation of the Falklands TaskForce (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott). It worries me that I know this and MPs don't.
Does explain the relative absence of Cabinet Ministers out to defend it.
Interesting fact. The Cabinet is a standing subcommittee of the Privy Council. The trick to understanding the UK is that it's a mediaeval kingdom retrofitted to behave like a Westphalian state. Many of the old, dusty buttons and switches still have power and there are many tricks one can pull.
How is a legitimate Privy Council meeting can comprise only the Queen, the Leader of the HoC, the Leader of the HoL and the Government Chief Whip?
Don't they have any requirements for balance or a quorum?
Yes. Three plus the Sovereign is a quorum.
No, because the Council is to advise the queen and parties have no standing on it.
Blimey. I am sure Jezza's new written constitution will fix that.
Is this true that the decision to prorogue was taken by Johnson, Gove and Cox alone and without consultation with other Ministers? Just mentioned on WATO.
Yup. As I pointed out, you can do a lot with 3 PCs and a famous example is the authorisation of the Falklands TaskForce (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott). It worries me that I know this and MPs don't.
Does explain the relative absence of Cabinet Ministers out to defend it.
Interesting fact. The Cabinet is a standing subcommittee of the Privy Council. The trick to understanding the UK is that it's a mediaeval kingdom retrofitted to behave like a Westphalian state. Many of the old, dusty buttons and switches still have power and there are many tricks one can pull.
How is a legitimate Privy Council meeting can comprise only the Queen, the Leader of the HoC, the Leader of the HoL and the Government Chief Whip?
Don't they have any requirements for balance or a quorum?
Yes. Three plus the Sovereign is a quorum.
No, because the Council is to advise the queen and parties have no standing on it.
Blimey. I am sure Jezza's new written constitution will fix that.
Which one?
And anyway, how would Corbyn write a constitution? He can barely write a coherent letter.
Is this true that the decision to prorogue was taken by Johnson, Gove and Cox alone and without consultation with other Ministers? Just mentioned on WATO.
Yup. As I pointed out, you can do a lot with 3 PCs and a famous example is the authorisation of the Falklands TaskForce (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott). It worries me that I know this and MPs don't.
Does explain the relative absence of Cabinet Ministers out to defend it.
Interesting fact. The Cabinet is a standing subcommittee of the Privy Council. The trick to understanding the UK is that it's a mediaeval kingdom retrofitted to behave like a Westphalian state. Many of the old, dusty buttons and switches still have power and there are many tricks one can pull.
How is a legitimate Privy Council meeting can comprise only the Queen, the Leader of the HoC, the Leader of the HoL and the Government Chief Whip?
Don't they have any requirements for balance or a quorum?
Is this true that the decision to prorogue was taken by Johnson, Gove and Cox alone and without consultation with other Ministers? Just mentioned on WATO.
Yup. As I pointed out, you can do a lot with 3 PCs and a famous example is the authorisation of the Falklands TaskForce (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott). It worries me that I know this and MPs don't.
Does explain the relative absence of Cabinet Ministers out to defend it.
Interesting fact. The Cabinet is a standing subcommittee of the Privy Council. The trick to understanding the UK is that it's a mediaeval kingdom retrofitted to behave like a Westphalian state. Many of the old, dusty buttons and switches still have power and there are many tricks one can pull.
How is a legitimate Privy Council meeting can comprise only the Queen, the Leader of the HoC, the Leader of the HoL and the Government Chief Whip?
Don't they have any requirements for balance or a quorum?
Yes. Three plus the Sovereign is a quorum.
No, because the Council is to advise the queen and parties have no standing on it.
Blimey. I am sure Jezza's new written constitution will fix that.
Which one?
And anyway, how would Corbyn write a constitution? He can barely write a coherent letter.
Yes, well I did mean to add a to that. I was being tongue-in-cheek.
Is this true that the decision to prorogue was taken by Johnson, Gove and Cox alone and without consultation with other Ministers? Just mentioned on WATO.
Yup. As I pointed out, you can do a lot with 3 PCs and a famous example is the authorisation of the Falklands TaskForce (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott). It worries me that I know this and MPs don't.
Does explain the relative absence of Cabinet Ministers out to defend it.
Interesting fact. The Cabinet is a standing subcommittee of the Privy Council. The trick to understanding the UK is that it's a mediaeval kingdom retrofitted to behave like a Westphalian state. Many of the old, dusty buttons and switches still have power and there are many tricks one can pull.
How is a legitimate Privy Council meeting can comprise only the Queen, the Leader of the HoC, the Leader of the HoL and the Government Chief Whip?
Don't they have any requirements for balance or a quorum?
Yes. Three plus the Sovereign is a quorum.
No, because the Council is to advise the queen and parties have no standing on it.
Blimey. I am sure Jezza's new written constitution will fix that.
Which one?
And anyway, how would Corbyn write a constitution? He can barely write a coherent letter.
Some of those sinister chaps standing behind him are reasonably literate. And it's not as though they won't have several favoured models to works from...
Johnson's chances of getting a deal through the Commons were always pretty slim - after yesterday they must be nil. Indeed it's hard to see how he can ever win a Commons vote on anything controversial under any circumstances.
Is this true that the decision to prorogue was taken by Johnson, Gove and Cox alone and without consultation with other Ministers? Just mentioned on WATO.
Yup. As I pointed out, you can do a lot with 3 PCs and a famous example is the authorisation of the Falklands TaskForce (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott). It worries me that I know this and MPs don't.
Does explain the relative absence of Cabinet Ministers out to defend it.
Interesting fact. The Cabinet is a standing subcommittee of the Privy Council. The trick to understanding the UK is that it's a mediaeval kingdom retrofitted to behave like a Westphalian state. Many of the old, dusty buttons and switches still have power and there are many tricks one can pull.
How is a legitimate Privy Council meeting can comprise only the Queen, the Leader of the HoC, the Leader of the HoL and the Government Chief Whip?
Don't they have any requirements for balance or a quorum?
Yes. Three plus the Sovereign is a quorum.
No, because the Council is to advise the queen and parties have no standing on it.
Blimey. I am sure Jezza's new written constitution will fix that.
Which one?
And anyway, how would Corbyn write a constitution? He can barely write a coherent letter.
Some of those sinister chaps standing behind him are reasonably literate. And it's not as though they won't have several favoured models to works from...
It would probably start with a clause on control of the means of production.
Johnson's chances of getting a deal through the Commons were always pretty slim - after yesterday they must be nil. Indeed it's hard to see how he can ever win a Commons vote on anything controversial under any circumstances.
I agree, although really his best chance of winning the coming GE must be to get us out with a deal. That way he can say 'I said we'd be out and we are'.
So why the hell he's scuppering his chances like this god only knows!
Corbyn is the only game in town. An interesting question is whether this is whole affair is a devious plot by Number 10 to have Corbyn call the who runs Britain? election.
The most likely desire of the PM is that parliament gives him both the who runs Britain election, and also an extension to give him enough time to negotiate a deal with the EU.
The only other plausible explanation of his govt so far is he believes no deal will be fine and dandy, with everyone rejoicing in November and beyond. In other words, not very plausible at all.
Is this true that the decision to prorogue was taken by Johnson, Gove and Cox alone and without consultation with other Ministers? Just mentioned on WATO.
Yup. As I pointed out, you can do a lot with 3 PCs and a famous example is the authorisation of the Falklands TaskForce (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott). It worries me that I know this and MPs don't.
Does explain the relative absence of Cabinet Ministers out to defend it.
Interesting fact. The Cabinet is a standing subcommittee of the Privy Council. The trick to understanding the UK is that it's a mediaeval kingdom retrofitted to behave like a Westphalian state. Many of the old, dusty buttons and switches still have power and there are many tricks one can pull.
How is a legitimate Privy Council meeting can comprise only the Queen, the Leader of the HoC, the Leader of the HoL and the Government Chief Whip?
Don't they have any requirements for balance or a quorum?
Yes. Three plus the Sovereign is a quorum.
No, because the Council is to advise the queen and parties have no standing on it.
Blimey. I am sure Jezza's new written constitution will fix that.
Which one?
And anyway, how would Corbyn write a constitution? He can barely write a coherent letter.
Some of those sinister chaps standing behind him are reasonably literate. And it's not as though they won't have several favoured models to works from...
It would probably start with a clause on control of the means of production.
I think all sensible people would issue a condomnation of that action.
Johnson's chances of getting a deal through the Commons were always pretty slim - after yesterday they must be nil. Indeed it's hard to see how he can ever win a Commons vote on anything controversial under any circumstances.
I agree, although really his best chance of winning the coming GE must be to get us out with a deal. That way he can say 'I said we'd be out and we are'.
So why the hell he's scuppering his chances like this god only knows!
Can’t see him doing too badly if Parliament blocks Brexit.
Corbyn is the only game in town. An interesting question is whether this is whole affair is a devious plot by Number 10 to have Corbyn call the who runs Britain? election.
The most likely desire of the PM is that parliament gives him both the who runs Britain election, and also an extension to give him enough time to negotiate a deal with the EU.
The only other plausible explanation of his govt so far is he believes no deal will be fine and dandy, with everyone rejoicing in November and beyond. In other words, not very plausible at all.
On the other hand, this is a man who believes in the face of all evidence that Cummings has sufficient ability to be a senior government official.
I'm appalled by Ruth Davidson's remarks. "referenda"? Ye Gods. It is always referendums.
What I worked at BBC News in the late 70s we had two referendums going on in Scotland and Wales and the dictat came from high - the plural was referenda. At the time I was Duty Editor for Radios 1 and 2 news and felt almost embarrassed by this for our audiences. We used to get into all sorts of verbal contortions to avoid "referendums" but we never used the form referenda
On a similar note, Dear the United Kingdom, it’s coup d’État, with a capital E with an accent aigu, please.
#PedantryCorner
I thought accents over capital letters were entirely optional in written French?
Thats what I was taught too - and its certainly a widespread practice - but as a Francophile Republican TSE has the Academie FrancaiseAcadémie Française on his side.
I note that Ruth Davidson is yet more collateral damage for Billy Bunter. Bunter and his minions are destroying a once-great broad church party step by step, at the altar of narrow nationalism.
I'm appalled by Ruth Davidson's remarks. "referenda"? Ye Gods. It is always referendums.
What I worked at BBC News in the late 70s we had two referendums going on in Scotland and Wales and the dictat came from high - the plural was referenda. At the time I was Duty Editor for Radios 1 and 2 news and felt almost embarrassed by this for our audiences. We used to get into all sorts of verbal contortions to avoid "referendums" but we never used the form referenda
Stadia is the plural of stadium, media is the plural of medium, quanta is the plural of quantum. Referenda is the plural of referendum. I am trying desperately not to use the word "labia" here...
I'm appalled by Ruth Davidson's remarks. "referenda"? Ye Gods. It is always referendums.
What I worked at BBC News in the late 70s we had two referendums going on in Scotland and Wales and the dictat came from high - the plural was referenda. At the time I was Duty Editor for Radios 1 and 2 news and felt almost embarrassed by this for our audiences. We used to get into all sorts of verbal contortions to avoid "referendums" but we never used the form referenda
Stadia is the plural of stadium, media is the plural of medium, quanta is the plural of quantum. Referenda is the plural of referendum. I am trying desperately not to use the word "labia" here...
Visa is the plural of Visum
That’s only true if you are using visa as the Latin for “apparitions” - not if you’re using it in it’s usual English sense as something (a paper) which has been seen in which case it’s the past participle of video.
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Prorouging Parliament is a far worse betrayal of Take Back Control
If Parliament was prorogued from 4 September to 1 November maybe. That's not happening though is it?
Proroguation is happening over 4 sitting days as a long overdue Queens Speech finally happens.
If it wanted to Parliament could vote to revoke. It's had 3.5 years so far the hysteria over 4 sitting days for an overdue State Opening is pathetic.
Bollocks. You know effing well that the PM is frit of the Commons. He's a coward and a liar. This wheeze has been designed scrutiny.
What is it with LDs and bollocks?
They're the only party that are showing some right now?
Jo Swinson talks it all the time but has no clear strategy unlike Corbyn
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Prorouging Parliament is a far worse betrayal of Take Back Control
If Parliament was prorogued from 4 September to 1 November maybe. That's not happening though is it?
Proroguation is happening over 4 sitting days as a long overdue Queens Speech finally happens.
If it wanted to Parliament could vote to revoke. It's had 3.5 years so far the hysteria over 4 sitting days for an overdue State Opening is pathetic.
Bollocks. You know effing well that the PM is frit of the Commons. He's a coward and a liar. This wheeze has been designed to avoid scrutiny.
I totally disagree with this characterisation of our Prime Minister.
It should read, 'he's a coward, a liar, a racist, a chauvinist, a bully, an inarticulate speaker and a lazy fool.'
You’ll be delighted to know I’m writing an article on Dominic Cummings, I think you’ll enjoy.
Looking forward to your article on David Cameron even more
I’ve already written a piece about David Cameron (pbuh) that will be published on Thursday the 19th of September to coincide with the publication of his autobiography.
I have to respect an embargo but I’m not kind on those who betrayed Dave.
Murdo Fraser To Win 3/1 Jackson Carlaw To Win 4/1 Adam Tomkins To Win 6/1 Donald Cameron To Win 8/1 Alister Jack To Win 12/1 Annie Wells To Win 12/1 Maurice Golden To Win 12/1 Rachel Hamilton To Win 12/1 Colin Clark To Win 20/1 John Lamont To Win 20/1 Stephen Kerr To Win 20/1 Ross Thomson To Win 25/1
Is this true that the decision to prorogue was taken by Johnson, Gove and Cox alone and without consultation with other Ministers? Just mentioned on WATO.
Yup. As I pointed out, you can do a lot with 3 PCs and a famous example is the authorisation of the Falklands TaskForce (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott). It worries me that I know this and MPs don't.
Does explain the relative absence of Cabinet Ministers out to defend it.
Interesting fact. The Cabinet is a standing subcommittee of the Privy Council. The trick to understanding the UK is that it's a mediaeval kingdom retrofitted to behave like a Westphalian state. Many of the old, dusty buttons and switches still have power and there are many tricks one can pull.
How is a legitimate Privy Council meeting can comprise only the Queen, the Leader of the HoC, the Leader of the HoL and the Government Chief Whip?
Don't they have any requirements for balance or a quorum?
Yes. Three plus the Sovereign is a quorum.
No, because the Council is to advise the queen and parties have no standing on it.
Blimey. I am sure Jezza's new written constitution will fix that.
The Privy Council will be replaced by a stage at Glastonbury
I'm appalled by Ruth Davidson's remarks. "referenda"? Ye Gods. It is always referendums.
What I worked at BBC News in the late 70s we had two referendums going on in Scotland and Wales and the dictat came from high - the plural was referenda. At the time I was Duty Editor for Radios 1 and 2 news and felt almost embarrassed by this for our audiences. We used to get into all sorts of verbal contortions to avoid "referendums" but we never used the form referenda
On a similar note, Dear the United Kingdom, it’s coup d’État, with a capital E with an accent aigu, please.
#PedantryCorner
I thought accents over capital letters were entirely optional in written French?
Dropping accents from capitals in French is a leftover from the days of typewriters when there weren't enough keys for all the accented letters.
I'm appalled by Ruth Davidson's remarks. "referenda"? Ye Gods. It is always referendums.
What I worked at BBC News in the late 70s we had two referendums going on in Scotland and Wales and the dictat came from high - the plural was referenda. At the time I was Duty Editor for Radios 1 and 2 news and felt almost embarrassed by this for our audiences. We used to get into all sorts of verbal contortions to avoid "referendums" but we never used the form referenda
Stadia is the plural of stadium, media is the plural of medium, quanta is the plural of quantum. Referenda is the plural of referendum. I am trying desperately not to use the word "labia" here...
I'm appalled by Ruth Davidson's remarks. "referenda"? Ye Gods. It is always referendums.
What I worked at BBC News in the late 70s we had two referendums going on in Scotland and Wales and the dictat came from high - the plural was referenda. At the time I was Duty Editor for Radios 1 and 2 news and felt almost embarrassed by this for our audiences. We used to get into all sorts of verbal contortions to avoid "referendums" but we never used the form referenda
Stadia is the plural of stadium, media is the plural of medium, quanta is the plural of quantum. Referenda is the plural of referendum. I am trying desperately not to use the word "labia" here...
Visa is the plural of Visum
That’s only true if you are using visa as the Latin for “apparitions” - not if you’re using it in it’s usual English sense as something (a paper) which has been seen in which case it’s the past participle of video.
Corbyn is the only game in town. An interesting question is whether this is whole affair is a devious plot by Number 10 to have Corbyn call the who runs Britain? election.
The most likely desire of the PM is that parliament gives him both the who runs Britain election, and also an extension to give him enough time to negotiate a deal with the EU.
The only other plausible explanation of his govt so far is he believes no deal will be fine and dandy, with everyone rejoicing in November and beyond. In other words, not very plausible at all.
On the other hand, this is a man who believes in the face of all evidence that Cummings has sufficient ability to be a senior government official.
We live in interesting times. Who knows...I still seek rational explanations for the actions of the Tory leadership, perhaps there are none beyond surviving each days news cycle.
I'm appalled by Ruth Davidson's remarks. "referenda"? Ye Gods. It is always referendums.
What I worked at BBC News in the late 70s we had two referendums going on in Scotland and Wales and the dictat came from high - the plural was referenda. At the time I was Duty Editor for Radios 1 and 2 news and felt almost embarrassed by this for our audiences. We used to get into all sorts of verbal contortions to avoid "referendums" but we never used the form referenda
On a similar note, Dear the United Kingdom, it’s coup d’État, with a capital E with an accent aigu, please.
#PedantryCorner
I thought accents over capital letters were entirely optional in written French?
Thats what I was taught too - and its certainly a widespread practice - but as a Francophile Republican TSE has the Academie FrancaiseAcadémie Française on his side.
Is this true that the decision to prorogue was taken by Johnson, Gove and Cox alone and without consultation with other Ministers? Just mentioned on WATO.
Yup. As I pointed out, you can do a lot with 3 PCs and a famous example is the authorisation of the Falklands TaskForce (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott). It worries me that I know this and MPs don't.
Does explain the relative absence of Cabinet Ministers out to defend it.
Interesting fact. The Cabinet is a standing subcommittee of the Privy Council. The trick to understanding the UK is that it's a mediaeval kingdom retrofitted to behave like a Westphalian state. Many of the old, dusty buttons and switches still have power and there are many tricks one can pull.
How is a legitimate Privy Council meeting can comprise only the Queen, the Leader of the HoC, the Leader of the HoL and the Government Chief Whip?
Don't they have any requirements for balance or a quorum?
Yes. Three plus the Sovereign is a quorum.
No, because the Council is to advise the queen and parties have no standing on it.
Blimey. I am sure Jezza's new written constitution will fix that.
The Privy Council will be replaced by a stage at Glastonbury
Is this true that the decision to prorogue was taken by Johnson, Gove and Cox alone and without consultation with other Ministers? Just mentioned on WATO.
Yup. As I pointed out, you can do a lot with 3 PCs and a famous example is the authorisation of the Falklands TaskForce (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott). It worries me that I know this and MPs don't.
Does explain the relative absence of Cabinet Ministers out to defend it.
Interesting fact. The Cabinet is a standing subcommittee of the Privy Council. The trick to understanding the UK is that it's a mediaeval kingdom retrofitted to behave like a Westphalian state. Many of the old, dusty buttons and switches still have power and there are many tricks one can pull.
How is a legitimate Privy Council meeting can comprise only the Queen, the Leader of the HoC, the Leader of the HoL and the Government Chief Whip?
Don't they have any requirements for balance or a quorum?
LOL, how quaint that you should think there is anything remotely fair or balanced about that bunch of shysters.
Is this true that the decision to prorogue was taken by Johnson, Gove and Cox alone and without consultation with other Ministers? Just mentioned on WATO.
Yup. As I pointed out, you can do a lot with 3 PCs and a famous example is the authorisation of the Falklands TaskForce (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott). It worries me that I know this and MPs don't.
Does explain the relative absence of Cabinet Ministers out to defend it.
Interesting fact. The Cabinet is a standing subcommittee of the Privy Council. The trick to understanding the UK is that it's a mediaeval kingdom retrofitted to behave like a Westphalian state. Many of the old, dusty buttons and switches still have power and there are many tricks one can pull.
How is a legitimate Privy Council meeting can comprise only the Queen, the Leader of the HoC, the Leader of the HoL and the Government Chief Whip?
Don't they have any requirements for balance or a quorum?
Yes. Three plus the Sovereign is a quorum.
No, because the Council is to advise the queen and parties have no standing on it.
Blimey. I am sure Jezza's new written constitution will fix that.
The Privy Council will be replaced by a stage at Glastonbury
Or a toilet that gives advice, on the grounds that there's less shit in it.
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Prorouging Parliament is a far worse betrayal of Take Back Control
If Parliament was prorogued from 4 September to 1 November maybe. That's not happening though is it?
Proroguation is happening over 4 sitting days as a long overdue Queens Speech finally happens.
If it wanted to Parliament could vote to revoke. It's had 3.5 years so far the hysteria over 4 sitting days for an overdue State Opening is pathetic.
Bollocks. You know effing well that the PM is frit of the Commons. He's a coward and a liar. This wheeze has been designed to avoid scrutiny.
I totally disagree with this characterisation of our Prime Minister.
It should read, 'he's a coward, a liar, a racist, a chauvinist, a bully, an inarticulate speaker and a lazy fool.'
You’ll be delighted to know I’m writing an article on Dominic Cummings, I think you’ll enjoy.
Looking forward to your article on David Cameron even more
I’ve already written a piece about David Cameron (pbuh) that will be published on Thursday the 19th of September to coincide with the publication of his autobiography.
I have to respect an embargo but I’m not kind on those who betrayed Dave.
Is this true that the decision to prorogue was taken by Johnson, Gove and Cox alone and without consultation with other Ministers? Just mentioned on WATO.
Yup. As I pointed out, you can do a lot with 3 PCs and a famous example is the authorisation of the Falklands TaskForce (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott). It worries me that I know this and MPs don't.
Does explain the relative absence of Cabinet Ministers out to defend it.
Interesting fact. The Cabinet is a standing subcommittee of the Privy Council. The trick to understanding the UK is that it's a mediaeval kingdom retrofitted to behave like a Westphalian state. Many of the old, dusty buttons and switches still have power and there are many tricks one can pull.
How is a legitimate Privy Council meeting can comprise only the Queen, the Leader of the HoC, the Leader of the HoL and the Government Chief Whip?
Don't they have any requirements for balance or a quorum?
Yes. Three plus the Sovereign is a quorum.
No, because the Council is to advise the queen and parties have no standing on it.
Blimey. I am sure Jezza's new written constitution will fix that.
The Privy Council will be replaced by a stage at Glastonbury
Which would be more nonsensical than the current arrangements because...?
I think all sensible people would issue a condomnation of that action.
I turned up some useful suggestions form the Barnet Allotment Association model. Clause 3 seemed particularly pertinent.
THE CONSTITUTION
1 Name The organisation can call itself “association” rather than “society” if it prefers but should have the word “allotment” it its name. If you choose to use “association” or another word to describe your organisation you will have to replace the word “society” in the relevant places. Do not use automatic replacement as the word “society” is used in different ways in the constitution.
2 Objects The Objects are deliberately written widely to allow the society to engage in managing allotments and related activities. There is no requirement for a society to pursue all the objects but they are there for when you or your successors decide to spread your wings.
3 Powers The powers of the society are very wide, allowing anything which is legal. Some of these Powers may not be needed at present but they are there in case they are required in future. These powers may be used only for promoting the Objects and it would be an illegal breach of trust to use the society’s funds to do things which are not in the Objects.
I sat in on about an hour of the interdict hearing in the Court of Session before lunch. Even by lawyer standards Mr O'Neill rather likes the sound of his own voice and I doubt that he is going to finish his submissions today. A few points of interest.
Firstly, there are apparently cases in NI where they are seeking an injunction on the basis that the prorogation was a breach of the GFA. Not sure I really understood how. This is in addition to the new Miller action being threatened in England.
Mr O'Neill rather likes his history and was labouring the Claim of Right from 1689 (the Scottish equivalent of the Bill of Rights). Lord Doherty somewhat plaintively asked if there were not more recent examples of challenges to prorogation. He was told not but I was told by another QC that there are in fact precedents from Canada.
It seemed to me, having skimmed their note of argument, that the pursuers are very much more focused on the right to seek the interdict than the basis for it. That this was some autocratic and demagogic abuse of power was rather taken as read. This strikes me as a very obvious weakness in the case although much will depend on Mr Dunlop's explanation as to the rational behind the decision.
In particular no real consideration was given in the note of argument about whether Parliament itself could take steps in the way we have discussed on here.
I can't see Lord Doherty wanting to rush this. There is, somewhat unusually, a TV camera in his court and he will be conscious that appeals are almost certain. I would be very surprised if he gave his decision before Monday at the earliest.
Unfortunately I am too busy to go back this afternoon. I will try to pop in near 4 to see how much progress is being made. It was very slow going this morning.
Is this true that the decision to prorogue was taken by Johnson, Gove and Cox alone and without consultation with other Ministers? Just mentioned on WATO.
Yup. As I pointed out, you can do a lot with 3 PCs and a famous example is the authorisation of the Falklands TaskForce (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott). It worries me that I know this and MPs don't.
Does explain the relative absence of Cabinet Ministers out to defend it.
Interesting fact. The Cabinet is a standing subcommittee of the Privy Council. The trick to understanding the UK is that it's a mediaeval kingdom retrofitted to behave like a Westphalian state. Many of the old, dusty buttons and switches still have power and there are many tricks one can pull.
How is a legitimate Privy Council meeting can comprise only the Queen, the Leader of the HoC, the Leader of the HoL and the Government Chief Whip?
Don't they have any requirements for balance or a quorum?
Yes. Three plus the Sovereign is a quorum.
No, because the Council is to advise the queen and parties have no standing on it.
Blimey. I am sure Jezza's new written constitution will fix that.
The Privy Council will be replaced by a stage at Glastonbury
Or the toilets at Glastonbury.
Either would be more intelligent and infinitely more useful
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Prorouging Parliament is a far worse betrayal of Take Back Control
If Parliament was prorogued from 4 September to 1 November maybe. That's not happening though is it?
Proroguation is happening over 4 sitting days as a long overdue Queens Speech finally happens.
If it wanted to Parliament could vote to revoke. It's had 3.5 years so far the hysteria over 4 sitting days for an overdue State Opening is pathetic.
Bollocks. You know effing well that the PM is frit of the Commons. He's a coward and a liar. This wheeze has been designed to avoid scrutiny.
I totally disagree with this characterisation of our Prime Minister.
It should read, 'he's a coward, a liar, a racist, a chauvinist, a bully, an inarticulate speaker and a lazy fool.'
You’ll be delighted to know I’m writing an article on Dominic Cummings, I think you’ll enjoy.
Looking forward to your article on David Cameron even more
I’ve already written a piece about David Cameron (pbuh) that will be published on Thursday the 19th of September to coincide with the publication of his autobiography.
I have to respect an embargo but I’m not kind on those who betrayed Dave.
Where is the geezer?
He's in Nice, with his trotters up. I think he should be held account for it.
Is this true that the decision to prorogue was taken by Johnson, Gove and Cox alone and without consultation with other Ministers? Just mentioned on WATO.
Yup. As I pointed out, you can do a lot with 3 PCs and a famous example is the authorisation of the Falklands TaskForce (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott). It worries me that I know this and MPs don't.
Does explain the relative absence of Cabinet Ministers out to defend it.
Interesting fact. The Cabinet is a standing subcommittee of the Privy Council. The trick to understanding the UK is that it's a mediaeval kingdom retrofitted to behave like a Westphalian state. Many of the old, dusty buttons and switches still have power and there are many tricks one can pull.
How is a legitimate Privy Council meeting can comprise only the Queen, the Leader of the HoC, the Leader of the HoL and the Government Chief Whip?
Don't they have any requirements for balance or a quorum?
Yes. Three plus the Sovereign is a quorum.
No, because the Council is to advise the queen and parties have no standing on it.
Blimey. I am sure Jezza's new written constitution will fix that.
The Privy Council will be replaced by a stage at Glastonbury
Or the toilets at Glastonbury.
Either would be more intelligent and infinitely more useful
I don't know. Boris is full of shit and taking the piss.
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Prorouging Parliament is a far worse betrayal of Take Back Control
If Parliament was prorogued from 4 September to 1 November maybe. That's not happening though is it?
Proroguation is happening over 4 sitting days as a long overdue Queens Speech finally happens.
If it wanted to Parliament could vote to revoke. It's had 3.5 years so far the hysteria over 4 sitting days for an overdue State Opening is pathetic.
Bollocks. You know effing well that the PM is frit of the Commons. He's a coward and a liar. This wheeze has been designed to avoid scrutiny.
I totally disagree with this characterisation of our Prime Minister.
It should read, 'he's a coward, a liar, a racist, a chauvinist, a bully, an inarticulate speaker and a lazy fool.'
You’ll be delighted to know I’m writing an article on Dominic Cummings, I think you’ll enjoy.
Looking forward to your article on David Cameron even more
I’ve already written a piece about David Cameron (pbuh) that will be published on Thursday the 19th of September to coincide with the publication of his autobiography.
I have to respect an embargo but I’m not kind on those who betrayed Dave.
Where is the geezer?
He's in Nice, with his trotters up. I think he should be held account for it.
Whatever excuses Dave comes up with in his pointless autobiography, Danny Dyer's will always be the authoritative account of his premiership.
I thought nothing would persuade me to vote for Corbyn but that was pre Johnson. The sight of Rees Mogg going to see the Queen to prorogue parliament was the last straw The best chance of ridding ourselves of this clique is to vote Corbyn (except in certain constituencies). He's bloody awful but at least he has principles and he's removable.
I’m with @ydoethur on this - they are both beyond the pale.
The point is Corbyn has no principles either. He proved that over welfare cuts. He's Johnson with a beard.
There is no sense in voting against someone by voting for someone just as bad, if not worse. I will be making a positive choice to vote for someone in November and that won't be either Blue or Red. I may not be successful in giving my choice the seat, but better that than to continue this populist disaster with different haircuts.
That comment last night was entirely deliberate, but nobody seemed to spot it.
I thought nothing would persuade me to vote for Corbyn but that was pre Johnson. The sight of Rees Mogg going to see the Queen to prorogue parliament was the last straw The best chance of ridding ourselves of this clique is to vote Corbyn (except in certain constituencies). He's bloody awful but at least he has principles and he's removable.
I’m with @ydoethur on this - they are both beyond the pale.
The point is Corbyn has no principles either. He proved that over welfare cuts. He's Johnson with a beard.
There is no sense in voting against someone by voting for someone just as bad, if not worse. I will be making a positive choice to vote for someone in November and that won't be either Blue or Red. I may not be successful in giving my choice the seat, but better that than to continue this populist disaster with different haircuts.
That comment last night was entirely deliberate, but nobody seemed to spot it.
Murdo Fraser To Win 3/1 Jackson Carlaw To Win 4/1 Adam Tomkins To Win 6/1 Donald Cameron To Win 8/1 Alister Jack To Win 12/1 Annie Wells To Win 12/1 Maurice Golden To Win 12/1 Rachel Hamilton To Win 12/1 Colin Clark To Win 20/1 John Lamont To Win 20/1 Stephen Kerr To Win 20/1 Ross Thomson To Win 25/1
Thanks. Who should the SCONs pick and who do you think they will pick?
Everyone except the Conservatives has an interest in seeing him stay in office until November without Britain leaving the EU. Why would they help him escape this fate?
Is this true that the decision to prorogue was taken by Johnson, Gove and Cox alone and without consultation with other Ministers? Just mentioned on WATO.
Yup. As I pointed out, you can do a lot with 3 PCs and a famous example is the authorisation of the Falklands TaskForce (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott). It worries me that I know this and MPs don't.
Does explain the relative absence of Cabinet Ministers out to defend it.
Interesting fact. The Cabinet is a standing subcommittee of the Privy Council. The trick to understanding the UK is that it's a mediaeval kingdom retrofitted to behave like a Westphalian state. Many of the old, dusty buttons and switches still have power and there are many tricks one can pull.
How is a legitimate Privy Council meeting can comprise only the Queen, the Leader of the HoC, the Leader of the HoL and the Government Chief Whip?
Don't they have any requirements for balance or a quorum?
Yes. Three plus the Sovereign is a quorum.
No, because the Council is to advise the queen and parties have no standing on it.
Blimey. I am sure Jezza's new written constitution will fix that.
The Privy Council will be replaced by a stage at Glastonbury
Which would be more nonsensical than the current arrangements because...?
...people don't chant "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" at the Privy Council?
I thought nothing would persuade me to vote for Corbyn but that was pre Johnson. The sight of Rees Mogg going to see the Queen to prorogue parliament was the last straw The best chance of ridding ourselves of this clique is to vote Corbyn (except in certain constituencies). He's bloody awful but at least he has principles and he's removable.
I’m with @ydoethur on this - they are both beyond the pale.
The point is Corbyn has no principles either. He proved that over welfare cuts. He's Johnson with a beard.
There is no sense in voting against someone by voting for someone just as bad, if not worse. I will be making a positive choice to vote for someone in November and that won't be either Blue or Red. I may not be successful in giving my choice the seat, but better that than to continue this populist disaster with different haircuts.
That comment last night was entirely deliberate, but nobody seemed to spot it.
In or out of the EU?
Out.
Because Johnson is about to make a huge electoral miscalculation as well - he expects to be rewarded for doing something. He thinks if he takes us out, grateful Leavers will flock to him.
Is this true that the decision to prorogue was taken by Johnson, Gove and Cox alone and without consultation with other Ministers? Just mentioned on WATO.
Yup. As I pointed out, you can do a lot with 3 PCs and a famous example is the authorisation of the Falklands TaskForce (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott). It worries me that I know this and MPs don't.
Does explain the relative absence of Cabinet Ministers out to defend it.
Interesting fact. The Cabinet is a standing subcommittee of the Privy Council. The trick to understanding the UK is that it's a mediaeval kingdom retrofitted to behave like a Westphalian state. Many of the old, dusty buttons and switches still have power and there are many tricks one can pull.
How is a legitimate Privy Council meeting can comprise only the Queen, the Leader of the HoC, the Leader of the HoL and the Government Chief Whip?
Don't they have any requirements for balance or a quorum?
Yes. Three plus the Sovereign is a quorum.
No, because the Council is to advise the queen and parties have no standing on it.
Blimey. I am sure Jezza's new written constitution will fix that.
The Privy Council will be replaced by a stage at Glastonbury
Which would be more nonsensical than the current arrangements because...?
...people don't chant "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" at the Privy Council?
Murdo Fraser To Win 3/1 Jackson Carlaw To Win 4/1 Adam Tomkins To Win 6/1 Donald Cameron To Win 8/1 Alister Jack To Win 12/1 Annie Wells To Win 12/1 Maurice Golden To Win 12/1 Rachel Hamilton To Win 12/1 Colin Clark To Win 20/1 John Lamont To Win 20/1 Stephen Kerr To Win 20/1 Ross Thomson To Win 25/1
Thanks. Who should the SCONs pick and who do you think they will pick?
I thought nothing would persuade me to vote for Corbyn but that was pre Johnson. The sight of Rees Mogg going to see the Queen to prorogue parliament was the last straw The best chance of ridding ourselves of this clique is to vote Corbyn (except in certain constituencies). He's bloody awful but at least he has principles and he's removable.
I’m with @ydoethur on this - they are both beyond the pale.
The point is Corbyn has no principles either. He proved that over welfare cuts. He's Johnson with a beard.
There is no sense in voting against someone by voting for someone just as bad, if not worse. I will be making a positive choice to vote for someone in November and that won't be either Blue or Red. I may not be successful in giving my choice the seat, but better that than to continue this populist disaster with different haircuts.
That comment last night was entirely deliberate, but nobody seemed to spot it.
In or out of the EU?
Out.
Because Johnson is about to make a huge electoral miscalculation as well - he expects to be rewarded for doing something. He thinks if he takes us out, grateful Leavers will flock to him.
Is this true that the decision to prorogue was taken by Johnson, Gove and Cox alone and without consultation with other Ministers? Just mentioned on WATO.
Yup. As I pointed out, you can do a lot with 3 PCs and a famous example is the authorisation of the Falklands TaskForce (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott). It worries me that I know this and MPs don't.
Does explain the relative absence of Cabinet Ministers out to defend it.
Interesting fact. The Cabinet is a standing subcommittee of the Privy Council. The trick to understanding the UK is that it's a mediaeval kingdom retrofitted to behave like a Westphalian state. Many of the old, dusty buttons and switches still have power and there are many tricks one can pull.
How is a legitimate Privy Council meeting can comprise only the Queen, the Leader of the HoC, the Leader of the HoL and the Government Chief Whip?
Don't they have any requirements for balance or a quorum?
Yes. Three plus the Sovereign is a quorum.
No, because the Council is to advise the queen and parties have no standing on it.
Blimey. I am sure Jezza's new written constitution will fix that.
The Privy Council will be replaced by a stage at Glastonbury
Which would be more nonsensical than the current arrangements because...?
...people don't chant "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" at the Privy Council?
Racing is the one sport you're probably better off playing at a traditional bookies, with each way punts on 2nd or 3rd fancies in 8 horse races particularly if there is a short odds favourite.
I'm appalled by Ruth Davidson's remarks. "referenda"? Ye Gods. It is always referendums.
What I worked at BBC News in the late 70s we had two referendums going on in Scotland and Wales and the dictat came from high - the plural was referenda. At the time I was Duty Editor for Radios 1 and 2 news and felt almost embarrassed by this for our audiences. We used to get into all sorts of verbal contortions to avoid "referendums" but we never used the form referenda
On a similar note, Dear the United Kingdom, it’s coup d’État, with a capital E with an accent aigu, please.
#PedantryCorner
I thought accents over capital letters were entirely optional in written French?
Thats what I was taught too - and its certainly a widespread practice - but as a Francophile Republican TSE has the Academie FrancaiseAcadémie Française on his side.
I only learned French so I could mock the fromage manger des singes de reddition in their own language.
One of the saddest things about Brexit is that the English language will no longer be the lingua franca of the EU.
Won't the Maltese and the Irish have something to say about that?
UK + Ireland + Malta ~= 73m
France + Luxembourg + Walloonia ~= 71.5m
Ireland + Malta ~= 5.5m
Some Wallons speak German but there are 100,000+ French speaking Italians.
And quite a lot who speak German, around 300,000 in and around Bolsano.
There are still some German native speakers in South Jutland as well as a few thousand Danish speakers on the other side of the border, not to mention Luxembourg, Czech Republic and Slovakia - so I am guessing German is the most spoken native language in the EU
2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?
Indeed but it will be ignored by your fellow Brexiteers who prioritise Brexit over the Union.
Sad.
Probably, yes. Very depressing.
Cheer up, you’re getting what you’ve always wanted, the UK leaving the EU.
No, I don't put sacrificing everything else as worth it just for that.
It's why I favoured May's Deal.
Considering May's awful deal and the backstop was a betrayal of Take Back Control and everything we debated during the referendum I'm confused by its popularity here.
Prorouging Parliament is a far worse betrayal of Take Back Control
If Parliament was prorogued from 4 September to 1 November maybe. That's not happening though is it?
Proroguation is happening over 4 sitting days as a long overdue Queens Speech finally happens.
If it wanted to Parliament could vote to revoke. It's had 3.5 years so far the hysteria over 4 sitting days for an overdue State Opening is pathetic.
Bollocks. You know effing well that the PM is frit of the Commons. He's a coward and a liar. This wheeze has been designed to avoid scrutiny.
I totally disagree with this characterisation of our Prime Minister.
It should read, 'he's a coward, a liar, a racist, a chauvinist, a bully, an inarticulate speaker and a lazy fool.'
You’ll be delighted to know I’m writing an article on Dominic Cummings, I think you’ll enjoy.
Looking forward to your article on David Cameron even more
I’ve already written a piece about David Cameron (pbuh) that will be published on Thursday the 19th of September to coincide with the publication of his autobiography.
I have to respect an embargo but I’m not kind on those who betrayed Dave.
Where is the geezer?
He's in Nice, with his trotters up. I think he should be held account for it.
2 years of almost continuous debate, endless votes, multiple statements with hours and hours and hours of questions, indicative votes and sundry other nonsense wasn't enough time?
Comments
He's apologised for an intemperate outburst. Nothing to see here.
Ahem. Just a twitch. Under control now. Happy thoughts, viewcode, happy thoughts...
Oh, sorry, not those pylons...
France + Luxembourg + Walloonia ~= 71.5m
Ireland + Malta ~= 5.5m
Edit - and of course that figure for France is still fewer than the number of Germans and Austrians.
Don't they have any requirements for balance or a quorum?
https://twitter.com/MonarchyUK/status/1167048291273584641?s=20
No, because the Council is to advise the queen and parties have no standing on it.
And anyway, how would Corbyn write a constitution? He can barely write a coherent letter.
And it's not as though they won't have several favoured models to works from...
So why the hell he's scuppering his chances like this god only knows!
The only other plausible explanation of his govt so far is he believes no deal will be fine and dandy, with everyone rejoicing in November and beyond. In other words, not very plausible at all.
He really is an utter helmet, isn’t he?
I have to respect an embargo but I’m not kind on those who betrayed Dave.
Murdo Fraser
To Win
3/1
Jackson Carlaw
To Win
4/1
Adam Tomkins
To Win
6/1
Donald Cameron
To Win
8/1
Alister Jack
To Win
12/1
Annie Wells
To Win
12/1
Maurice Golden
To Win
12/1
Rachel Hamilton
To Win
12/1
Colin Clark
To Win
20/1
John Lamont
To Win
20/1
Stephen Kerr
To Win
20/1
Ross Thomson
To Win
25/1
Strangely couldn't find the time to comment on this...
https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1136610833750994951
https://tinyurl.com/y349vtpx
Perhaps not too much of a surprise, but some interesting differences in choice of names by age of the mother.
Clause 3 seemed particularly pertinent.
THE CONSTITUTION
1 Name
The organisation can call itself “association” rather than “society” if it prefers but should have the word “allotment” it its name. If you choose to use “association” or another word to describe your organisation you will have to replace the word “society” in the relevant places. Do not use automatic replacement as the word “society” is used in different ways in the constitution.
2 Objects
The Objects are deliberately written widely to allow the society to engage in managing allotments and related activities. There is no requirement for a society to pursue all the objects but they are there for when you or your successors decide to spread your wings.
3 Powers
The powers of the society are very wide, allowing anything which is legal. Some of these Powers may not be needed at present but they are there in case they are required in future. These powers may be used only for promoting the Objects and it would be an illegal breach of trust to use the society’s funds to do things which are not in the Objects.
Firstly, there are apparently cases in NI where they are seeking an injunction on the basis that the prorogation was a breach of the GFA. Not sure I really understood how. This is in addition to the new Miller action being threatened in England.
Mr O'Neill rather likes his history and was labouring the Claim of Right from 1689 (the Scottish equivalent of the Bill of Rights). Lord Doherty somewhat plaintively asked if there were not more recent examples of challenges to prorogation. He was told not but I was told by another QC that there are in fact precedents from Canada.
It seemed to me, having skimmed their note of argument, that the pursuers are very much more focused on the right to seek the interdict than the basis for it. That this was some autocratic and demagogic abuse of power was rather taken as read. This strikes me as a very obvious weakness in the case although much will depend on Mr Dunlop's explanation as to the rational behind the decision.
In particular no real consideration was given in the note of argument about whether Parliament itself could take steps in the way we have discussed on here.
I can't see Lord Doherty wanting to rush this. There is, somewhat unusually, a TV camera in his court and he will be conscious that appeals are almost certain. I would be very surprised if he gave his decision before Monday at the earliest.
Unfortunately I am too busy to go back this afternoon. I will try to pop in near 4 to see how much progress is being made. It was very slow going this morning.
Deutsche Bank has shown today why it is in such a state with its garbage risk probabilities on the matter.
Panic Room - 4 TBP (4
Just backing BREXIT based horses now
Who needs that form studying stuff (which is too hard for me anyway)
That's basically the function of a toilet.
https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1166713597776543744?s=21
Because Johnson is about to make a huge electoral miscalculation as well - he expects to be rewarded for doing something. He thinks if he takes us out, grateful Leavers will flock to him.
Never works. Just ask Winston Churchill...
American Football: -£12.23 | Australian Rules: £48.81 | Basketball: £154.10 | Cricket: £631.24 | Darts: £3.07 | Football: £351.83 | Golf: £86.79 | Horse Racing: -£323.08 | Rugby League: £73.40 | Rugby Union: £24.09 | Snooker: £133.66 | Tennis: -£31.03 | Volleyball: £5.18 Total P&L: £1,145.83
Mind you last 7 days only down on Golf
Australian Rules: £5.24 | Basketball: £104.47 | Cricket: £808.10 | Darts: £3.07 | Football: £241.64 | Golf: -£52.16 | Horse Racing: £280.29 | Rugby League: £73.40 Total P&L: £1,464.05
Is the premium charge monster come up the rails ?
Cricket: -£12.58 | Football: -£24.87 | Motor Sport: £6.79 | Politics: -£28.24 Total P&L: -£58.90